"It defines blasphemy as "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted"."

It says ANY religion. So what religions are legally recognized in Ireland? How about Scientology? Is there are list somewhere?

There are a fair number of religions that have a high proportion of adherents who are easily outraged.

As the spokesman for Monosetians I want to voice our OUTRAGE caused by your demand for a list. Monosetians have few beliefs but asking for lists of things is shocking, abusive and insulting to our belief that all sets are of only one item. It's an obvious attempt to intentionally cause outrage amongst all of our members.

I'd like to give a little background on whats going on over here. The governing party, Fianna Fáil (soldiers of destiny if you don't mind) have managed to run the country into one of the worst recessions in Europe by a fairly spectacular series of bad decisions, coasting through into a coalition with the greens mainly on inertia. The leader of that party, Bertie Ahern, was run out of office under a storm of corruption accustations, and his finance minister (the same one that ran the country into the ground) took over.

This mandateless buffoon is one of the least popular leaders the country has ever seen, a morbidly obese fellow by the name of Brian Cowen. This stellar example of why sons shouldn't be allowed to run for office in the same constituency as their father was last seen jetting off to Rome to kow-tow to the Pope over the massive child abuse rings that were operated by Catholic priests in Catholic industrial schools in the 50s and 60s. Thats right, the Clowen apologised to a religious leader for abuse carried out by religious officials.

I and the vast majority of Irish people feel sick to our cores at this new law, but the fact remains at this point that we have no real voice or means to overthrow the government - we can't force a general election so these yahoos have free reign to blacken the name of the nation internationally until 2012 at least. Its a monstrous situation and I sincerely ask that people hearing about this dont' use it to judge the Irish people as a whole. The government hasn't really represented us for quite some time.

If you want to help out to fight this problem, there are some small groups struggling to get traction politicially, although the media doesn't really want to let them in. One of the most promising is Amhrán Nua [amhrannua.com], the new tune party, so send help if you can, well wishes, whatever to give these few the chance to be heard. The people of Ireland will thank you for it.

Do we really want to live in a world where it's not legal for me to say that Allah is a punk, that Jevohah is a murdering psychopath, or that Yaweh is a sadistic monster? Siva is a blue cocksucker and Brahma is two-faced?

Buddah's a lazy son-of-a-whore and Odin liked to give Zeus reach-arounds. There, I said it.

Call me optimistic on this first day of 2010, but I believe that radical Islam and the Christian Right and the orgy of crackpot New Age beliefs is not the sign of a resurgence in religious belief, but rather the dying spasm of an evolutionary adaptation that's no longer necessary.

In my two score and ten, I've seen the end-times deadlines coming more and more fast and furious. But now, with longer lifespans and online archives, we can see the corpses of apocalyptic predictions piling up. They're already starting to hedge on the 2012 mishegaas, covering their pre-columbian asses to avoid looking stupid on Jan 1, 2013. When religions have to be protected by laws and social conventions and political correctness and electronic apologists by the hundreds and armies of millionaire megachurches have to hire public relations firms, it starts to seem like they're whistling past the graveyard.

Anyway, I don't go in for that silly god-stuff. I'm a devout taoist. Tell me my beliefs are a joke and I'll laugh along.

> but rather the dying spasm of an evolutionary adaptation that's no longer necessary.

Evolution is less about removing "no longer necessary", and more about removing "kills you", and keeping "if it works well enough", or "gives an advantage".

As for "dying spasm" and evolution, I'll ask this:

Does Atheism really give the atheist group more/greater evolutionary advantages and fewer disadvantages than groups belonging to the major religious beliefs?

Atheists have fewer ways to take advantage of the very powerful placebo effect[1] ( they also don't have the convenience of "invisible omnipresent person"- unless they somehow really believe in the FSM;) ).

And they aren't that much less likely to get killed by some religious nutcase.

So it seems to me that the religious bunch might be around for quite a while yet. Why do you think they would be more likely to die out than the atheists?

Evolution is less about removing "no longer necessary", and more about removing "kills you"

I think a case can be made for "religion kills you".

Not "god kills you" or "faith kills you" or "prayer kills you", but there's something about when believers get together and start collecting money and a-hootin' and a-hollerin' that usually indicates the killing's about to commence.

If atheists in Ireland really want to stir up trouble, a group of them should formally recognize that atheism is itself a form of religion, register with the government (or submit whatever paperwork is necessary to make their beliefs protected under this law), and then ask that the law be used against priests who advocate that those who do not believe will burn in Hell, since it's a pretty abusive thing to say about a person and surely shouldn't be allowed.

What I don't understand about the blasphemy laws in general is how do religious people get around committing blasphemy against other religions just by pretty much quoting from their holy books whenever they contradict other holy books. Every Muslim will tell you that Jesus is not really a son of God, hence the Bible is full of lies. Isn't that blasphemy against Christianity?

In terms of a strict reading of the text, that is exactly how a blasphemy law would work. Pretty much all religions are, at least to some degree, contradictory to all the others, and so to practice one is to blaspheme against the others. The only groups that could actually function under a strictly applied blasphemy law would be agnostics and the purely apathetic. Obviously the supporters of blasphemy laws(who tend either to be fanatically religious, or strongly of the "Aw, can't we all just get along and never say mean things about each other" camp) don't actually intend this outcome.

In practice, though, that isn't how they are used. In practice, anything that enjoys the sanction of tradition and/or substantial popular support, even if formally blasphemous under the text of the law, will not be charged. Anything that is legally blasphemous and arouses public or state ire will be. Depending on the character of the state and the people, this can either involve fairly vicious crackdowns on minority religions and atheists, or the occasional takedown of fringe leaders within generally accepted religions.

You seem to be substantially understating the potential offensiveness of theological disagreement and the difficulty of discerning the intent of speech.

For instance, it is a commonplace in all but the really fluffy and liberal pockets of Catholicism to assert the theological position that there is no salvation outside the Church. You don't think that that could "cause outrage among a substantial number of adherents" of one or more Protestant sects? Or that asserting that somebody is subject to eternal da

then ask that the law be used against priests who advocate that those who do not believe will burn in Hell, since it's a pretty abusive thing to say about a person and surely shouldn't be allowed.

Except atheists don't believe in heaven or hell, so how can you threaten them with going to hell? That's like threatening me with sending me to the Phantom Zone - since I don't believe it exists, why would I be afraid of you trying to send me there?

Your argument would be fine if it's premise, "that atheism is itself a form of religion", were not false.

I, being one of many, have grown particularly weary of this old canard which, while it may be applied (weakly) to social movements such as "Humanism", does not in the least apply to atheism. Strictly speaking atheism is simply the lack of belief in any or all deities and has none of the attributes of a religion most especially a statement of faith. There is indeed a total lack of dogma, there is no str

I think the best way to get this overturned is to have people who aren't atheists to bring suit over every possible "blasphemy", because they realize that this law infringes on everyone's freedom of speech and religion. This law basically makes it criminal to have two religions that have opposing beliefs.

For example, any religion that believes that Jesus Christ was the son of God and speaks about it will be "blasphemous" to any religion that does not believe the same thing.

Or, if your religion doesn't believe Mohammed was a prophet of God, it can't say that any more. Likewise, one that does believe it can't say it.

It also would appear to outlaw any printing of the Bible, Koran, or any other religious publication.

The question is, how "grossly abusive" does the "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion" have to be? Are restaurants that serve pork/beef/whatever guilty? How about stores that are open on Saturday/Sunday/etc.? What about people who work on Saturday/Sunday/etc.?

...because atheism isn't a religion. Being atheist is simply the state of being without a belief in a god or gods. There is no dogma, no canon, no "book of how to behave", no punishment, no reward. It's just a lack of belief. Atheism doesn't define a person's outlook, behavior, morals or ethics. Atheism is the condition of trundling forward in life without said beliefs. That's all it is. So you can, and you will, encounter atheists who despise theism, atheists who don't care about theism, and atheists that are very interested in it for any number of reasons. Each will have their own way of dealing with life, because, and I am really repeating myself here, atheism contains no instructions of "how to" anything.

As some (very clever) wag has said: If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.

'Therefore It Is A Religious Position,' said Dorfl. 'Indeed, A True Atheist Thinks Of The Gods Constantly, Albeit In Terms of Denial. Therefore, Atheism Is A Form Of Belief. If The Atheist Truly Did Not Believe, He Or She Would Not Bother To Deny.'

I don't deny anything. I simply don't believe, because I've never seen anything that has even the slightest weight in favor of the various claims of theism. The only thing I object to is the imposition of religious behaviors upon me by the religious. For instance, if they don't want to drink beer on Sunday, then by George, I think that's just fabulous. However, if I wish to drink beer on Sunday, and they move to stop me - for instance by forcing stores not to sell beer to me - well, now we have a problem, and they have just become my enemy by stepping on my liberties. You'll note this opposition arises without any attempt by me to deny the religious their beliefs, or the truth of them, etc.

Religion, like any other highly personal set of choices, should remain between one's self and other consenting adults. As soon as you force it, or material consequences of it, upon someone else, you're pond scum. And that's being unkind to pond scum. Irish lawmakers have today joined this damp, respect-free group.

From their point of view, you are denying them their beliefs. They believe that drinking beer on a Sunday is a sin. They have the moral responsibility, enforced on them by their religious hierarchy, all the way up to their Creator, who, by the way, created you too, to stop you drinking on Sunday. Responsibility, mind you, not right. Right just gives them the power, which they can choose not to wield, but responsibility forces them to act. They are bound to stop you, and any one assisting you in the consumption of beer along the chain of supply, otherwise they are allowing you all to sin in violation of your Creator's Will, and they themselves are entirely complicit in the sin.

This is why most people pay only lip service to their religions, and the ones who truly try to act faithfully are insane, in jail or dead.

This is also why it's useless to argue any points of religion. Any follower of a faith who is outspoken enough to debate will be impossible to reason with. Because they have faith. Faith trumps all. Logic, scientific evidence, physical the-tears-on-that-Madonna-statue-are-vegetable-oil evidence, common sense, anything. They know they are right, they have faith in their beliefs, and nothing you can say or do can change that.

Medicine men, shamans, priests, they have all had thousands of years to build on their predecessors techniques and psychology. They have an answer for everything, an excuse for anything. As society became more sophisticated and murdering someone to bring back Spring got a little dicey, they formed larger structures, took responsibility for reading and writing(handy, that), rewrote their holy books with more sophistication, and redefined and retranslated as necessary to keep up with progress.

The latest one I've heard is the Vatican suggesting that life on other planets in the universe may be possible. That's directly opposite what their holy book has said for a couple of thousand years, but a bit of "oh, it's always said that, you were just misinterpreting the meaning" and it's done.

Here's a tip jim, red herrings like that don't work very well in an argument where all someone needs to do is scroll up to read the older posts.

Whether or not the vatican writes the laws of christianity is utterly irrelevant to you getting called out by me for being an ass about someone referring to the vatican's recent public statements regarding alien life which was even featured on this very site just last november.

Just accept that your attempt at being a living XKCD strip made you look like a lazy arrogant prick with the memory of a goldfish and a need to be spoonfed everything in the world and move on.

The Vatican has constantly denied the existence of extraterrestrial life. Back when the Bible was written, planets were unknown. Earth is the center of creation, the sun and moon are "great lights" and stars were a calendar. When planets were discovered (and they finally admitted they existed), it suited the church to label them lifeless. They had to, as planets weren't mentioned in the Bible and any life out there puts a huge crimp is the "Earth is the center of creation" and "we are His children" self-serving egocentric shtick.

Of course, now that more and more exoplanets are being discovered, the probability of life being inferred on one or more of them through spectroscopy or other means is rising rapidly. So, they're revising their stance and going for a "it might be possible" position.

It's interesting to note that the church placed the Earth at the center of the solar system. There's nothing in the Bible about the orbits of the Sun, Moon and stars around the Earth, but they came up with a pretty good fit with their beliefs which took into account observable evidence. When the telescope and planets came along, they tried banning the new evidence, but eventually had to redefine the solar system with the Earth in it's proper place.

Similarly, the "no life on other planets" stance has had to be changed, but the church has learned from it's history. For quite a few years now, the hard line has been softening and various sections of the church have been pushing an uncommitted view. With no direction from the Bible about planets, though, they're got their job cut out from them. In this day and age, they can't just make stuff up, so they're going to have to do something pretty inventive to explain life on them.

Think as a member of the faith, who lives their life (as best they can) by the word of the creator of the universe. Which is worse, the Creator not knowing about alien life, or keeping it a secret from His chosen people?

Back when the bible was written, planets were most certainly not unknown. The Hebrews even at the time they wrote the Torah were well aware of the same planets the Greeks, Romans and before them the Egyptians and Sumerians recognized.The Vatican hasn't constantly denied the existence of extraterrestrial life. They started denying the existence of extraterrestrial life during the counter-reformation. (from about 1545). The Vatican itself existed for at least 400 years before that time (founding estimated 1210), and the Roman Catholic Church for much longer.The most explicit offical denial came as part of the trial of Geordano Bruno in 1600. Bruno has often been described as a martyr to scientific thought, but it's worth noting that the church judges did not find Bruno's claims of a heliocentric cosmos or planets around other stars, or even life on such worlds, as grounds for his conviction and execution. The actual sentence cites Bruno's expression of pantheism as the only position actually, clearly heretical and worth execution.The Vatican isn't just now revising its stance on extraterrestrial life due to exoplanet discoveries - It rejected the positions of the counter-reformation as early as 1648, presumably including the denial of the posibility of extra terrestrials along with the rest of the things it threw out. It officially specifically allowed blanket publication of opinions on the subject by priests to the general public before 1950, resulting in several popular books, for example by Ftr. A Zubak in 1954. LeMatre published arguments as early as 1927 in the same paper where he described the formation of the universe from a monobloc of infinite density (the earliest form of the Big Bang theory) although as a good Catholic he put some of his notes through church review first. By all accounts, it was a pro forma review, even with ideas asspectacular as the Big Bang being proposed.

Back when the bible was written, planets were most certainly not unknown. The Hebrews even at the time they wrote the Torah were well aware of the same planets the Greeks, Romans and before them the Egyptians and Sumerians recognized.

Planets were known as "stars that move fast in weird paths". They weren't recognized for planets - celestial bodies of magnitude comparable to that of Earth, something that a human can walk, and something that can (as a concept) sustain life.

Think as a member of the faith, who lives their life (as best they can) by the word of the creator of the universe. Which is worse, the Creator not knowing about alien life, or keeping it a secret from His chosen people?

It's a good question, and I believe I can answer it for you.

I've spent most of my life around devout religious people, in particular the Catholics you're referring to.

First you have to understand the distinction between "dogma" and the "practice" that is most of the church's teaching.

Dogma
There really is very little you need to believe in, in order to be Catholic. It's basically summed up by the Apostle's Creed [wikipedia.org].

1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and life everlasting.

What? That's like saying if I truly didn't believe in Zeus, I wouldn't deny his existence and object to you demolishing my house to build him a temple.

If the people who believed in foolish things would keep their mouths shut and their hands out of public coffers, there'd be no reason for us to deny their silly fairy tales. They could ramble on in solitude like the people who are properly sent to a shrink when they claim to speak to invisible, imaginary beings.

What? That's like saying if I truly didn't believe in Zeus, I wouldn't deny his existence and object to you demolishing my house to build him a temple.

If the people who believed in foolish things would keep their mouths shut and their hands out of public coffers, there'd be no reason for us to deny their silly fairy tales. They could ramble on in solitude like the people who are properly sent to a shrink when they claim to speak to invisible, imaginary beings.

Whoosh - someone doesn't get irony. Who else but Pratchett gives his characters names like "Visit", and has them talk that way (In Capitals)? I think we can say that that's not what PTerry himself thinks. Quite the contrary, I'd say, based on many interviews he's given.

As PakProtector said, its Terry Pratchett... and if you don't know pTerry, then I must say three things:

1 - The book quoted is comedy, although it is the kind of comedy that makes you think after making you laugh2 - The atheist quoted is a Golem, made of clay, the fantasy equivalent of a robot (which is why his words all start with capital letters). As a general rule, atheists in the Discworld do not tend to live long, as they are frequently struck by lightning (even on a clear day) when they make their arguments. Dorfl the Golem, being made of clay, is immune to lightning, however.

3 - Please go and buy a book by Terry Pratchett, they are very good.

--

oh, and 4 - Pratchett most likely borrowed the argument of "the Atheist thinks of God constantly, albeit in terms of denial" from a very old Hindu story where a self-avowed atheist is sent directly in front of the face of God, as if he had spent his entire life praying. This was because, every time something good or something bad happened to him, the atheist would constantly remind himself that "gods don't exist" and therefore kept God in his mind constantly...

A further subtlety: the golem exists on the Discworld, where gods do exist. Earthling atheism is a completely irrational position in a universe where one can go out and have a drink with the God of Booze, and end up in a gutter with the Oh God of Hangovers. However, the kind of religious atheism the golem is explaining makes perfect sense in such a universe - after all, if it takes faith to believe in a god when there is no evidence for it, it must also take faith to disbelieve in any god when there is plenty of evidence for them.

If someone has read Pterry and mistaken it for Dostoevsky? Hell yes, that sounds like an important author to get to know.

Perhaps your misunderstanding derives from the mistaken impression that the GP was trying to aggrandize himself, when it is more likely he was celebrating a great (if accidental) complement to a beloved writer.

Think about what you just said, and try to see through it. Just because most people don't care about an author doesn't detract from his talent or insight.

An athiest could only be compared to a bald head if the athiest never contemplated the existence of a god or deity. What generally defines an athiest is their _rejection_ of religions, which is no less a belief structure than a religious one.

A more appropriate metafor would be to compare atheism with white hair, devoid of color pigment. It appears white because it reflects light instead of absorbing it, in the same way an athiest rejects religious views. Incidentally, white is also not a color, which doe

What's your point?
Christianity isn't a religion either, by your definition. Being christian is simply the state of believing in one Jesus Christ. There is no dogma, no canon, no "book of how to behave", no punishment, no reward. Just faith in one thing.

Of course there are many christian churches.
Some of them do have some of those components. The only dogma shared by all of them really have is that 'God exists' and 'Jesus christ existed. Some have a 'canon' some don't.
Some have 'book of how to beh

Your chart depends on a model of belief that identifies belief with assertion. Lacking a belief in a God is not the same thing as asserting that he does not exist. I do not have a belief in the existence of a man wearing green underwear standing in Times Square on 2 am on February 21, 2008 - it isn't that I assert the impossibility of that man existing, nor that it is theoretically unknowable. I simply do not generate a certain mental state, "belief", that has the existence of that entity as its object. You could call this "Santa Claus" atheism, if you like - the position that YHWH has the same status as Santa Claus, or at least of the man wearing green underwear.

The existence of God has no explanatory force for me. It does not exist in my constellation of things which I have grounds to believe exist. I feel this justifies the term "atheist," rather than "agnostic."

atheism is more than simply lack of belief in a deity. consider some definitions:

If you wish to play with dictionaries, lets use your obviously infallible friend Webster (I'm British, I feel I must point out my use of sarcasm is because Webster is famous for re-writing the English language), and follow the path you have laid to one of its possible conclusions:

Atheism: 2a - a disbelief in the existence of deity.

Disbelief: the act of disbelieving.

Disbelieve: to hold not worthy of belief.

Therefore, you've just cherry-picked the definition to suit your argument. It isn't even a case o

Please outline the beliefs of atheism. Please outline atheistic morality. Please define the atheistic purpose for life.
If you can't do these, you're spouting bullshit and really out to shut up and let the adults talk.

Atheism states that there is no higher power in the world. That there is no god, gods or any higher form of life. And such gods cannot exist based on a few arguments.

That would be strong atheism - actually stating "there is no god". There exist other positions.

One is weak atheism - "I don't believe in a god". This would mean that though a deity can conceivably exist, I don't currently believe in any.

Another is agnosticism - "It's not possible to know if there is a god or not". I consider this to be a strange position to hold, as there are many things that are unknownable. For instance, unvisible pink unicorns as well as pretty much every deity. It seems to me that it'd be a colossal waste of time to think about the countless entities which can't be proven not to exist, when one can simply take the position of "I'll believe in it when it shows up".

And yet another one is ignosticism - "I don't know what you mean when you say 'god'". This would be a variety of weak atheism in that it doesn't recognize a deity either.

As such, its a natural conclusion based on scientific evidence that if there was no god, gods or higher forms of life other than man, that the existence of man is to benefit the species of man. To carry on the normal functions of life, to help others of the same species, to then die. Those are the logical conclusions.

While strong atheism does have some of the characteristics of religious belief, it still prescribes nothing. Nowhere does it say that there's a purpose "to benefit the species of man".

There exist nihilists, who probably wouldn't agree. For a stronger example, see the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, who believe that the planet would be better off without us, and choose not to breed. This would go rather counter to the "benefit man" idea, and I don't think there's any religion that accepts such a philosophy.

And yet another one is ignosticism - "I don't know what you mean when you say 'god'"

Given that God has no measurable presence in reality, this is actually everyone's position whether they realize it or not.

When Alice tells Bob, "I really like that table", Bob can know exactly which table Alice is referring to, because that table is a well-defined real entity. When Alice tells Bob "I really like God", it is impossible for Bob to know what Alice means, because "God" refers to a poorly defined, potentially ima

Or another postition -- "There are Things Out There (which we don't yet fully understand) that have some of the attributes of a god, but I don't believe that any of them are a supreme being per se, and I'm not required to believe in any of them that I don't wish to."

This is approximately the position of people who manage to be both pagans and atheists at the same time. More akin to the practical view of Greek/Roman polytheism than to modern religion.

Rational Agnosticism is very solid position. The best summary of it I came across recently, "you can know that someone loves you, but can't prove it.". RA contends that everything, can and does exist and as this is something beyond the thinking of our human minds, who are we to say what is or is not god, since really it's all the same stuff, the little bit and pieces of our universe and other universes making up the infinity. A rational Agnostic doesn't believe in an intervening god, or a god who may even b

Atheism states that there is no higher power in the world. That there is no god, gods or any higher form of life.... if there was no god, gods or higher forms of life other than man...

That does not follow logically. "I have no belief in a supernatural entity" does not necessarily flow to "Humans are the highest form of life." It may seem that way to us, but there's no logical connection to those statements whatsoever. You may find an atheist who firmly believes that bacteria repre

You're not describing what is logical. You're describing what happened. It has nothing to do with logic - it's just what worked. There could be dozens of other ways that species could thrive. In fact, you've pretty much described OUR species and ignored that other species have survived just as well with vastly different social structures.

You cannot derive an "ought" from an "is." You've committed a rather anthropocentric version of the naturalistic fallacy.

If a set can be the empty set, then anything is a religion. But that'd be silly. But atheism is the empty set. It is a lack of beliefs in god(s). That is not a belief, but a lack of belief. And to call atheism a religion is silly.

It's not wrong to specifically not include something in a definition - the definition of the primes specifically says 1 is not a prime.

It's actually not a lack of belief. A belief is essentially a strong conviction about something you cannot prove. Obviously there is no proof there is no god, but you certainly believe there is no God. Make your sentance active instead of active while maintaining the same meaning and your argument fails.

The Agnostic has a lack of belief, an Athiest believes in a negative. Frankly, Athiesm is far more of a religion than Agnosticism is. At least they are brave enough to admit that they just plain don't know, and tend to not really care either.

In reality, Athiests commit the inverse of the exact same logical fallacy that believers in a god must commit. You cannot hold either position without commiting the negative proof fallacy. The version that believers in a god commit is that if a premis cannot be proven false, it must be true. The version Athiests commit is that if a premise cannot be proven true then it must be false.

Both lines of reasoning are fallacious. They are also both grounded in a firm belief that a premis must be true or false with no proof to back up either side. Both sides will use the exact same evidence to prove their point, but neither side has any actual proof. The Athiests are in a particular bind on this one, because it is impossible to prove a negative. The only ones who could ever even potentially prove their case are those who believe in a god. Some might even say that takes a bit of extra faith on the part of the Athiest, given that fact. It also tends to breed a lot of zealotry in Atheists, I believe. Most Athiests I know of seem to be pretty evangelical about it anyway.

Only the Agnostics take a logical stance when it comes to god, and simply state "I dunno" and go on with their lives.

For the record, I believe in a god, the Christian God to be exact. "But wait!" you say, "you just argued that your belief system is based on a logical fallacy!" Well of course it is, that's what makes it a belief. I'm also careful not to commit the fallicist's fallacy - that is, just because an argument is fallacious does not mean the conclusion itself is false.

No beliefs are not about things which we cannot prove. I believe the earth is reasonably spherical is a belief about something which is proven. You're confusing faith with belief. Faith is what you have about things which you cannot prove, beliefs are things we hold true no matter what their proof status.

Agnostics are making a positive statement about the limits of knowledge. They are explicitly saying that knowledge has some limits, and that god(s) are things that lie beyond those limits. Although rare, it

There is a substantive difference between "no belief in god" and "belief in no god". The prior is an absence of belief and makes no claim as to the existence of a god. The latter is an affirmative statement of the non-existence of a god. The prior is agnosticism, the latter atheism.

For some reason you are tying belief with god. This belies an inaccurate understanding of the term "belief". Look it up. Few definitions of "belief" refer to deity.

That's not a belief. It's a response to a proposition. Theism is not a religion, and it has just as many "beliefs", just one that is "There is at least one god". Atheism and theism are positions on an issue, not religions in and of themselves.

Buddhism is atheistic, Raelians are atheistic, Christians are theistic, Hindus are theistic.

One major branch of Buddhism doesn't see any need for gods - That's the Theravadist position. Do the meditation, get off the wheel. Mahayanists would probably say Theravada is good prep for moving into the full Mahayana tradition, and gods are part of the package but the goal is not to become a god but to become enlightened and then go back to get everyone else there. Vajrayanists would generally say there are gods, and then teach you how to make them useful tools for going further if that's needful, but th

In my dictionary, atheism is defined as "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God". This is quite distinct from the position of agnosticism, which states that we do not know if there is a God.

The law was just brought in so that the law matches the constitution (and this was acknowledged by those that passed it). It's written in such a way no one will ever be prosecuted. The only alternative would be a referendum to change the constitution, and what politician wants to seem like they support blasphemy? As well as that, when the law was passed the next referendum was for the Lisbon treaty, and the government wouldn't have wanted to hold the two referendums together (as it'd make the Christian Right more likely to vote, and so possibly sink the Lisbon referendum).

I recall that one Christian leader here in Australia opposes laws against blasphemy because to be implemented properly they would have to protect all the religions we currently recognise. And that a lot.

This is one of occasions where the French have it about right, they have separation of church and state. They do not even allow religion in schools in any form. I don't understand why people think it is ok to force their beliefs on me.

It has nothing to do with “beliefs” that’s a straw-man word.Religion is a mild schizophrenia. A disease where people don’t use the outside world as a reference for their internal model of it, but a made-up internal model. E.g. “God wants it to be that way, therefore it’s OK that I lost my house, and I don’t have to break down and shoot myself.”In some way it is a useful mechanism, because it helps people who can’t cope with the actual real world, not to

.Religion is a mild schizophrenia. A disease where people don't use the outside world as a reference for their internal model of it, but a made-up internal model.

You seem to have a quite simplistic view of religion. Religious beliefs arose out of one of the characteristics that makes us human - our seemingly innate desire to ask questions about reality and know chains of cause-and-effect. Science has answered many of the questions that religion once was used for, but that doesn't mean there are many deep questions to which the scientific method cannot be applied. Some atheists appear to expect humans to throw up their hands in the face of these questions and say "Well! These are not scientific questions, therefore they cannot and will not be approached." It won't happen, our natural desire to know which gave birth to the scientific method in the first place prevents that.

If you see someone who is very religious (and normally also very easily driven out of his calm state, when faced with the disparity of reality and his model of it), try to find the roots, help him face and fix them, and let him work the way up again, fixing the disparities in the process. Or at least don’t make his life even worse.:)

Do you suppose this approach would work at say, the Harvard Divinity School? Do you feel that all religious people are a priori ignorant bumpkins, simply waiting for you to bring the blinding light of reason to raise them up?

Science has answered many of the questions that religion once was used for, but that doesn't mean there are many deep questions to which the scientific method cannot be applied. Some atheists appear to expect humans to throw up their hands in the face of these questions and say "Well! These are not scientific questions, therefore they cannot and will not be approached."

Please, feel free to provide examples. I frequently see statements like this, but there's rarely any actual substance to them.

mrphoton's "in any form" was admittedly badly chosen, but you misunderstood him. He meant that French kids don't receive any *religious* education, while they certainly still are educated *about* religion. They learn that the catholics say there's a big man with a white beard in the sky watching over us and Jesus is his son, but they don't learn what the catholics say as a truth - just as an opinion.

The US technically has separation of church and state, but not in practice. Congress holds prayers, the "pledge of allegiance" (what is that thing intended for anyways? brainwashing?) contains the phrase "under god", the currency states "in god we trust", etc.

Though I agree that the US tends to take the freedom of expression more seriously. Over here they tend to make illegal anything that is sufficiently unpopular. I certainly don't support racists or homophones, but I don't think they should be prosecuted

It's not separation from Church and State. The country was founded by and populated by mostly Protestant Christian people with ideals and beliefs to that effect. All this states is that the State has no ability to enforce a given religion and must allow all beliefs to be practiced in peace without fear of the State. This didn't work out too well for the Mormons and others back in the mid-1800's though.

The funniest thing that could happen is that a religious person is brought up on charges. It is almost impossible to create a sermon or whatever without being blasphemous to fragment of some religions. Some Christian sermons I hear about are out right blasphemous to non-christian religions. At the very least, many mention jewish and muslim people in a very negative manner, and tend to disrespect Mohammed. On a subtler note, there is quite a bit of blasphemy between the Christian sects. if one says that

For the record, I am an evangelical Christian and this strikes me as something that can only end in tears. When will politicians (and, more importantly, voters) realize that trying to protect feelings only undermines free speech and, ultimately, democracy? We need our leaders to tell the cry-babies to grow up.

It's all just proof to me that religion is a form of insanity, or mental impairment, inability for objective free thought, or rational analysis, or failure and inability to reach logical conclusions.
How far of a leap is it really, from believing, without proof, of a magic being in the sky, to believing that the dismembered body parts of albinos in Africa possess magic powers? Or that suicide bombing will land you in paradise? Or that getting on your knees and begging a supposed omnipotent being for help, would yield results? The same being, mind you, who impotently, or indifferently observed the extermination of 12,000,000,000 humans in the concentration camps of Europe.

Imagine the following scenario: you are sitting outside on a log in the snow. There is a nice January sun shining down on you, the temperature is a crisp -8 and you are minding your own business. Suddenly someone comes along and shouts out loud 'YOU DO NOT EXIST'. What would your reaction be?

The most likely reaction would be one of scorn and ridicule, right? Being secure in the fact of your existence you would not feel the need for others around you to confirm your existence. You KNOW you exist so what do you care what others say?

Now imagine you are..... GOD. Big Capital Letter GOD, creator of the universe (or at least separator of light and darkness if you want to follow the most recent translations) and everything that moves and lives and breathes. Your denizens are like microbes on a human's skin, so many of your creation walks and crawls and creeps and slithers around that blue planet. What would you care if one of those creatures, one of those microbes, proclaims you non-existence? Would you clamor for confirmation of it to those other creatures, those other microbes? Of course not. You are GOD! You don't need confirmation of anything! You are the past, the present and the future, everything moves only by your grace, you are omnipotent and omniscient.

Why, then, do these religious nutcases claim that it is a criminal act to claim the aformentioned?

The only possible explanation is that they are not sure at all that this deity they proclaim to believe in actually exists. They will do anything to keep up appearances, anything to keep their mind-construct from failing. Anyone who shakes the tree has to be stopped before they fall out. Anyone who points out that the book they read is actually an allegorical work of fiction has to be punished.

By trying to stop anyone from claiming god does not exist they prove that god does, in fact, not exist.

"Recent years have witnessed a great increase of affection and esteem for the person of the Holy Father, L. Benedict Ratzinger®," said the statement. "As such, any person or organisation seeking to name, defame or allude to His Holiness®, any of his Bishops or Priests, or any activities of any of said persons in any capacity, shall be deemed to have violated the Sacred Covenant of Berne, to be a 'no case gain' Suppressive Person and to be duly excommunicated and sued into atomic dust. ALWAYS ATTACK, NEVER DEFEND."

Evidence only recently brought to light, "which we can't show you, it's copyright," apparently demonstrates that playwright William Shakespeare was secretly Catholic. "So we're claiming copyright in everything he did too. And Francis Bacon. And the Earl of Oxford."

The Church's lawyers have worked hard to defend their intellectual property rights on such creative works as those of the Irish priests upon their young charges that only recently came to light. "Our determination to protect and preserve the rights to view, discuss or know about these three-dimensional kinetic performance works, and our tour support for the priests to take these works 'on the road' to new parishes, demonstrates the unimpeachable sincerity of our stance — firmly behind the artists. Legs wide, of course."

The Pope himself has been appalled at the reaction to his recent decision to beatify Adolf Hitler, and described his visit to the Pius XII memorial as "an upsetting encounter with cruelty and senseless hatred. I didn't like it much either."

Matthias: Look, I don't think it should be a sin, just for saying "Jehovah".
[Everyone gasps]
Jewish Official: You're only making it worse for yourself!
Matthias: Making it worse? How can it be worse? Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!
Jewish Official: I'm warning you! If you say "Jehovah" one more time (gets hit with rock) RIGHT! Who did that? Come on, who did it?
Stoners: She did! She did! (suddenly speaking as men) He! He did! He!
Jewish Official: Was it you?
Stoner: Yes.
Jewish Official: Right...
Stoner: Well y

My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy'.